[EL] Political question doctrine question (re: Ohio partisan gerrymander struck down)

Fri May 3 14:35:11 PDT 2019

Another three judge unanimous decision today, 300 pages in length, striking down the Ohio Congressional map...

As Marty points out, the ability of the lower courts to discern standards and make judgements in these redistricting challenges now has a pretty extensive track record

https://apnews.com/49a500227b0240279b66da63078abb5a?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiospm&stream=top

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPhone

On May 3, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:

I've never really thought this through, and perhaps the answer's obvious one way or the other, but thought I'd toss it out to you all here:

Has the SCOTUS ever held that something was a nonjusticiable federal question because of a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards" (which the Court will likely do in the next few weeks re: gerrymandering) after several lower courts had "discovered and managed" such standards?

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
Breaking: Unanimous 3-Judge Court, in 300-Page Opinion, Strikes Ohio Congressional Districts as Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymanders<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104993>
Posted on May 3, 2019 10:07 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104993> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

You can find the opinion at this link<https://www.scribd.com/document/408562889/Ohio-Redistricting-decision>. From the introduction:

We join the other federal courts that have held partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional and developed substantially similar standards for adjudicating such claims. We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity. Performing our analysis district by district, we conclude that the 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined. We conclude that the map unconstitutionally burdens associational rights by making it more difficult for voters and certain organizations to advance their aims, be they pro-Democratic or pro-democracy. We conclude that by creating such a map, the State exceeded its powers under Article I of the Constitution. Accordingly, we declare Ohio’s 2012 map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, enjoin its use in the 2020 election, and order the enactment of a constitutionally viable replacement.

I suspect that Ohio, as Michigan just did when faced with a similar ruling, will ask the United States Supreme Court to stay this ruling pending the decision in the pending partisan gerrymandering cases out of North Carolina and Maryland. I expect the Court will grant that request.

What the Supreme Court ends up doing here is uncertain, but it is quite remarkable how many lower courts, many of them unanimous, have now issued decisions, along similar contours<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=104888>, finding partisan gerrymandering to violate one or more provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
<image001.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D104993&title=Breaking%3A%20Unanimous%203-Judge%20Court%2C%20in%20300-Page%20Opinion%2C%20Strikes%20Ohio%20Congressional%20Districts%20as%20Unconstitutional%20Partisan%20Gerrymanders>
Posted in redistricting<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
<image002.png>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>

--
Marty Lederman
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-662-9937

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190503/ef59180e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190503/ef59180e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25207 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190503/ef59180e/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 119050317351302191.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190503/ef59180e/attachment-0002.png>